This wasn't really terrorism. He's a soldier in the enemy force of Islamofascism, apparently with radical views of American foreign policy and a recent convert. He attacked a legitimate military target.

His cause is horrible, and his tactic is cowardly, but it's not my definition of terrorism. The military must roundly recognize that while it needs to be tolerant of all races and all peaceful religion, that Islamofascism, and radical dissent against US Foreign policy, is not acceptable.

The guy had been in since before 9/11 and had avoided deployment. He was critical of US policy in the War on Terror and also believed Moslems shouldn't fight other Moslems (where was he the last 1200 years?).

I don't think he can be called a terrorist, but he should have been discharged about 7 years ago. Unfortunately, since this sort of thing has happened before, Moslems in the Armed Forces ought to be vetted the way Germans and Italians being inducted into the US military were vetted at the beginning of WWII.

Some of this may turn out to be a result of all of the "it's our fault" nonsense promoted by the Left. I'll bet anything his views weren't reported for the same reason Mohammed Atta's learning to take off, but not land wasn't reported - it wouldn't be PC.

Btw, the Kentucky Census worker hanging (which Althouse posted on)... well it turns out it was a probably a suicide. Maybe Charles Johnson will post a retraction after blaming it on anti-government sentiment.

I know all the Islam stuff is interesting and will get all the attention, but is anyone else reacting to the face that he was a psychiatrist? These are the people the media always go to after a shooting to explain it, or to help afterward. Like they know something. Isn't there something a little discomfiting about that?

Now, in my head my inclination is to say that spree shooters are just messed-up people independent of things like religion or profession, but the psychiatrist thing does stick with me as being even more wrong than usual. And it plays to my prejudices against psychiatry, which are much, much stronger than any prejudices I might have against Islam (I tend to think I don't have any).

I know all the Islam stuff is interesting and will get all the attention, but is anyone else reacting to the face that he was a psychiatrist?

I was going to say something about that, but I'm not sure what to say. I work in Mental Health and we generally make jokes about the psychiatrists being as messed up as the patients but it didn't seem quite appropriate here. I'm still waiting on more details.

Despite the base being a military target, I think this attack could still be defined as terrorism, given that (I assume) most of the victims were unarmed. Massacring unarmed persons, civilian or otherwise, is either terrorism or a war crime. And since this guy didn't belong to any military force at war with the US, terrorism fits better than war crime.

This story is crazy, but as soon as his name came on the screen we were like, huh.

I mean I was shocked, shocked to find that his name wasn't Major Tom. Or something like that.

He was critical of US policy in the War on Terror

Probably should have resigned his commission then.

He's a soldier in the enemy force of Islamofascism, apparently with radical views of American foreign policy and a recent convert.

Um...he was an officer in the United States Army? Well ok if he decided to switch teams fine. Last time I checked, what he did should fall under the crime of high treason and should be summarily executed.

That the Islamoid lived is actually a good thing for America. Now we will hopefully...and not locked away from public scrutiny...learn how an Islamoid like him thinks.

He killed soldiers getting ready to deploy to Iraq. This on the surface appears quite similar to the circumstances of SGT. Hassam Akbar, who thought it was his duty to try and kill infidels preparing to invade Iraq back in 2003 and kill his brother Muslims.

I don't believe a "purge of all Muslims is wise"...just as a purge of all Jews from national security positions because of spies for Israel and dual loyalty questions is uncalled for and would be counterproductive.But like in WWII, the loyalties of Germans, Japs, Italian aliens and their hyphen-American spawn WERE put under extra scrutiny....and all American communists WERE from 1946 until they became mostly irrelevant in 1990....it would be a fine time to think hard about the existence of anti-American ISlamoids like Hasan being in the military.And think real hard about the quest of do-gooders to "rescue" various Muslim refugees from situations of Islamist-on-Islamist violence like Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sunni Iraqis, the "noble" Darfuran Islamists..

Uh, I get the "it's not terrorism because the victims were soldiers" angle but it's still terrorism. Know why? BECAUSE HE WAS WEARING THE SAME UNIFORM AS THE UNIFORM OF THE VICTIMS. Even if he was a "soldier of islamofacism" or whatever, he was not dressed in their uniform. He did not declare war on his enemies. He put on their uniform and attacked what he knew were unarmed soldiers.

My wife and I were a bit amazed that a shrink with 2 9mm pistols, and I assume they were 15 shot mags, could manage to shoot 42 soldiers. These weren't recruits. Flee or rush him, I dont understand how he got that many hits before he ran out of targets and met MP's

My wife and I were a bit amazed that a shrink with 2 9mm pistols, and I assume they were 15 shot mags, could manage to shoot 42 soldiers. These weren't recruits. Flee or rush him, I dont understand how he got that many hits before he ran out of targets and met MP's

We were wondering about that at work. I suspect there is a lot more that we haven't heard yet. I'm not sure if he shot all those people, or those other two "suspects" were involved.

It seems this guy was a convert - and from what we've seem, those guys seem to bear watching a lot more than guys who happen to be born Muslim. I am sure we all recall the DC Sniper, and Sgt. Hasan Akbar.

I heard that there were two shooters. That was a while ago -- while things were still happening -- and I haven't heard that since (I've been at a school thing, and consequently out of touch). But it does seem odd that 1 person could kill so many on a military base without being rushed.

Notwithstanding the fact that he is an anti-war nut and apparently opposed our war efforts -- like our current commander in chief -- he is undeniably a terrorist.

This was an act of war, not a civilian crime. The proper charge is treason, waging war against the United States, and seeing as how he is in the military of the U.S., the proper forum is by military courtmartial, followed by hanging.

I don't care if this sounds vindictive, but I'm glad the S.O.B.'s alive. That means he doesn't get the easy out of being killed by officers (or MPs?) at the scene, but instead gets to answer for what he did.

Goddamn bastard. 31 dead. Right now, on another board I'm on, a recently separated guy is just waiting for news on his until very recently comrades in arms - yes, he was based at Hood, obviously - and I can't imagine what he's going through. Worse yet, can't imagine what the soldiers families are going through.

Well, I've not seen anything else about the two shooters, so I guess it was just erroneous early-on reporting.

I think it's interesting that they've found quotes already from his former patients declaring what good care they received from him. PTSD by proxy? I doubt an insanity defense gets you out of a treason charge however.

Hasan attended the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring and was "very devout," according to Faizul Khan, a former imam at the center. Khan said Hasan attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week, often in his Army fatigues.

Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim of Palestinian descent whose parents came to the United States from the West Bank. He joined the military after high school and earned medical degrees as he rose through the ranks, family members said.

"The shooter is not dead but is in custody and in stable condition," Cone said, adding, "His death is not imminent

nice understatement on the last.

officer in uniform, killing uniformed troops on a base.

This won't be a Texas legal matter.

UCMJ article 118...he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

If this guy were Christian, would we still be calling it terrorism? What is the official definition of terrorism? Is it terrorism because he attacked soldiers? When the wacko killed people at the Omaha Von Maur store, I don't think we called it terrorism, even though shoppers were terrorized.

The word "terrorism" should mean something and not be diluted with every criminal act of a Muslim.

I keep trying to improve what I wrote but I think I'll just leave it as is and risk sounding stupid tonight.

7:59 p.m. Former colleague says Hasan upset about Afghanistan warCol. Terry Lee, who says he worked with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, spoke with FOX News Channel's Shepard Smith on Fox New Channel's "Fox Report" about the alleged gunman's views.

"He said, maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor, at first we thought he was talking about how Muslims should stand up and help the armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but apparently that wasn't the case," Col. Lee said. "He would make comments to other individuals about how we should not be in the war in the first place."

"He was hoping that President Obama would pull troops out..." Lee said. "When things weren't going that way he became more agitated, more frustrated with the conflicts over there...he made his views well known about how he felt about the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

and

8:59 p.m., 9:27 p.m. AP: Internet postings drew attentionThe Associated Post is reporting that the "Fort Hood suspect drew attention of authorities 6 mos. ago for Internet posts." Citing a federal law enforcement official, the AP also says the writings were never conclusively linked to him and "an official investigation was not opened."

There is still no good reporting on his background. He went to school in Damascus, according to one internet site that was up with his cv before the shooting. He may or may not have been a convert. He may or may not have been born a Muslim. His colleagues and patients may or may not have warned about him.

And yes how did he get off all those shots with multiple reloads? I have always assumed that if someone like him attacked a group of trained soldiers--as opposed to students--he would be rushed and subdued quickly. Apparently it's not nearly that easy and the confusion and fear give him some latitude. I have no criticism of the people he was shooting at for not subduing him. I've sure never walked in those moccasins.

THE PRESIDENT: Please, everybody have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference. I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was around, and so I want to give a shout-out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you. (Applause.)

My understanding is, is that you had an extremely productive conference. I want to thank all of you for coming and for your efforts, and I want to give you my solemn guarantee that this is not the end of a process but a beginning of a process, and that we are going to follow up. (Applause.) We are going to follow up. Every single member of my team understands that this is a top priority for us. I want you to know that, as I said this morning, this is not something that we just give lip service to. And we are going to keep on working with you to make sure that the first Americans get the best possible chances in life in a way that's consistent with your extraordinary traditions and culture and values.

Now, I have to say, though, that beyond that, I plan to make some broader remarks about the challenges that lay ahead for Native Americans, as well as collaboration with our administration, but as some of you might have heard, there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas. . . .

This disgusting POS just gets more disgusting and vile with each passing day.

I don't believe a "purge of all Muslims is wise"...just as a purge of all Jews from national security positions because of spies for Israel and dual loyalty questions is uncalled for and would be counterproductive.

Cedar and I don't often agree, but his point is well-taken; this is why I specifically used the word vet, instead of purge. In WWII, the Nisei were excellent soldiers - those who served in the 442nd Infantry Regiment and the 100th Infantry Battalion, as well as those who served individually (some, for example, in Merrill's Marauders) - and still are.* It should be no different with Moslems who are vetted.

* Quick notes - one of the reasons the Japanese-Americans were interned was to vet them. An organization whose name in English translates to Black Dragon was feared to be in the US. BD ran the worst of the labor camps in Manchuria, conducted bio-warfare experiments in China, and carried out terror ops throughout the Western Hemisphere, hiding among Japanese immigrant communities. After WWII, they became the Yakuza.

The other point is that, after 9/11, my wife and I flew from Cleveland to Hawaii. The only place where the "security" looked worthy of the name was in Honolulu Airport, manned by the 442nd, sharp as ever.

A fifth columnist for sure. The Jordanians he was related to are not friendly to the Jewish State or its benefactors. He just could not stand around and watch Americans whip ass in Islam territory...so he Allah Akbared and began shooting the infidels. The delusion is that calling islamic men peaceful will stop them from murdering us infidels. That's just a tactic of ours and it does not always work out so well. But we do have Israel as bait to center their hatreds closer to home and we will not be attacked full force until israel is exterminated first, God forbid. The Religion of the sword strikes out at infidels and women respectors and Jew lovers again.

The question is complicated because (as other commenters point out) it has 2 dimensions, res & verba: on the one hand questions of fact about the man; on the other hand questions about the meaning/ application of the (obviously contested) word "terrorist".

Suppose he's a "lone gunman." Can a lone actor-- that is, planning/ acting completely alone, without collaborators, superiors, co-conspirators, accomplices, trainers-- be a "terrorist"? Surely there are cases where (we would say) the term applies. Does the criteria then have more to do with the degree of "in-sanity"? (Makes me think of the discussion below re spectrums of psychological disorder. For one is tempted to say that a majority of terrorists probably have *some* degree of psychological disorder... high-functioning though they may be. Which doesn't make them less responsible, or less terrorist.) As long as he had a certain recognizable, relatively coherent political-ideological agenda-- that of Islamic Jihad-- motivating his violence (violence against his fellows, outside the context of war... which is of course up for debate here), doesn't that *in & of itself* make him-- "mental case" or not-- a "terrorist"? (As opposed to disgruntled employee, bitter ex-husband, etc.) I'm not sure. Perhaps this can only be judged case by case? But using what criteria?

Obviously the all-too-quick assurances we heard in the MSM (from talking heads as well as FBI), even before most of the facts were in, that this was *not* a case of "terrorism"-- protesting a bit too much, certainly too early-- leads one to think the issue here has as much or more to do with political/ ideological/ cultural/ strategic contestation over the term "terrorist" than facts about the man himself. (And note, the repudiation of the term by the MSM doesn't have anything to do with the relevant issue raised in this thread, i.e whether in aiming at soldiers/ military his action falls rather under the rubric of "war".) What's the basis of their semantic distinction?

The most interesting part of this horrible affair so far, at least in terms of observing the news media, is how they were falling all over themselves to not release the name, knowing the emotional impact it would have on the public.

I agree with something a Saudi Air Force Captain once said to me years ago. Before WWII, the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia had the most goats and the biggest tents. When oil is no longer important, the Middle-East will cease to hold any interest for the rest of the modern world.

This is Bush's singular failure. He could have gotten anything done he wanted to on 9/12/01. A crash ten year Manhattan project to end oil dependence would have been possible and we would no longer care about Muslim extremists of any stripe.

It's not easy in hindsight because I was hoping he would do just that days after the towers came down.

Now it's Bush's fault that the hydrocarbon atom happens to the most efficient energy source known to man. Amazing guy, that Bush.

Anyway, of course the guy is a muslim terrorist, but don't expect any of the nuanced thinkers in our media to admit it even when he's jumping up screaming Allah akbar! and "Death to America" during his trial.

It doesn't much matter if it was "terrorism" or just a crime. The label isn't really so important at this point. Let's hope he gets the chair for his acts.

As for his being Muslim, it seems to me to be coincidental to someone who was losing their mind.

I have very little love for the religion of obedience, but I have to say that there are plenty of muslims that are fine, upstanding people. The Azerbaijanis served in Iraq alongside me and I have nothing but the greatest respect for them. There are a lot of muslim Iraqis that have fought hard on our side to restore freedom and security to their nation.

I just watched the video of Obama giving his talk about the conference and shouting out to Joe Medicine Crow. How very strange that he would go on for two and a half minutes of chit-chat before turning to the killings.

And when he speaks of the killings, he says they were "horrific." but there is no real sense of horror in his demeanor, no anger, no passion.

It is a very disconcerting peek into the man's feelings--or lack thereof.

I doubt you can name any Muslim who has betrayed America's top secrets anymore than any Jew would screw up the courage to kill mass numbers of civilians directly - other that that Rabbi Goldstein on the West Bank who took out some 30 people.However, my point was that it would be as counterproductive to purge all Muslims from being in the military because of a few acts of violence as it would be for purging all Jews of security clearances because some gave our top nuclear and other national defense secrets to the Soviets, China, and Israel.

But for now, Muslims should be watched for situations were they could cause a lot of violence. Same for Jews involved in programs we know Israel is keenly interested in could cause a lot of damge from sying. And espionage risk by Cuban ethnics working Latin American policy areas at State, and Chinese ethnics at places we know are being targeted for military secrets or economic destruction and transfer of that industry to Chinese workers.

================holdfast said... It seems this guy was a convert - and from what we've seem, those guys seem to bear watching a lot more than guys who happen to be born Muslim.

The guy was a born Muslim to Jordanian "refugee" parents. Raised Muslim. Stayed Muslim. More to learn, obviously...fortunately for the sake of information gathering, unless NYC ACLU types can get to him first and lawyer him up...we will learn if he went Jihadi like SGT Akbar did. Or several dozen other likely "enemy within" Islamoids did. ======================== Slow Joe said... This wasn't really terrorism. He's a soldier in the enemy force of Islamofascism, apparently with radical views of American foreign policy and a recent convert. He attacked a legitimate military target.

A bizarre thing to say. 1st, "islamofascism" is a stupid nickname coined by Neocons who also wanted to habituate people into terming the present conflict World War IV.Islamists have very little of any fascist manifestations.

And no soldier in our uniform can claim his comrades are a legitimate war target and it is stupid for others to think it so. Customarily, whenever a turncoat soldier was found, they were dispatched on the spot by their former comrades. Usually very slowly.

OMG -- he was suffering from the stress before he went (according to Nightline).

They are talking about the blog where someone with his name talked about the suicide bombers positively.

He had hired a lawyer to get out of the Army.

(I am sure as a Major there are clear ways to get out.)

He is described by his former imam as wanting a devout Muslim wife.

His family said he had been called a "camel jockey" by other soldiers (officers?).

What I find very difficult to believe is with the reported (by an Army colonel) comments by Hasan that he was actually transfered to an assignment (and advanced weapons training) that would put him into Iraq. I think there will be some examination of that and accountability for that by the Army.

After "dithering" so long, how will Obama look if, after this incident, he doesn't follow his generals' advice on an Afghan surge? Even if he had planned to reject their advice based on the impact on the troops, can he even say that now?

I suppose how Obama handles the first issue will determine how large it loom over the second.

Many nuts I have known were fascinated with how the mind works, so I'm saying nut case. Being forced to ship overseas where conceivably he'd have to kill his brother Arabs/Muslims might have been what set him off. We sent the 442 Regimental Team to Italy (IIRC) not Japan, to avoid problems like that.

Nightline now talking to the former Muslim chaplain from Fort Hood - MAJ Shabazz.

(Shabazz appears to be a black American convert?)

Shabazz interviewed Hasan about taking over the Muslim services as Shabazz was being transferred to another base.

"I would have to say that was an extreme action that he took." Shabazz.

States Hasan portrayed himself as fair and balanced to take Shabazz's place.

(Note -- this is not word for word.)Reporter asked about whether he was told by Hasan that he had been insulted / teased and had hired a lawyer to get out of the Army. Shabazz says no. He does say that sometimes soldiers joke around, often trying to connect with each other, and they might make jokes about eating pork for instance. (Shabazz seems quite able to process these as jokes.) He said some Muslim soldiers do not see it as connection attemps or humor.

Reporter: Does the Army do a pretty good job protecting Muslim soldiers?

Shabazz: I think we're treated pretty fairly.

Shabazz counseled the other Muslim murderer Abdul (?) at Fort Bragg (before? After is the idea I got) and says he tooks things very personally.

If a Muslim prosletyizes and lauds terrorist killings elswhere, why is his religion/politics coincidental today?

Today, but not tomorrow or the next day, because of a quaint journalistic practice known as "fact-checking." Posts attributed to Hasan may not have been made by him, any more than posts here were made by the real pogo -- after all, Walt Kelly has been dead for years.

He's entitled to be a Muslim, and he's entitled to object to our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, when he shoots dozens of Americans, I am entitled to label him a terrorist without being accused of intolerance....I channel surfed when the news first came out. MSNBC took this horrendous occasion to brief their viewers on the fact that many returning American soldiers became psycho killers because of the stress they undergo in combat. The good doctor had never been deployed overseas, but it's good to know this important fact about American soldiers while they are being sutured Some psychologist on CNN said that the good doctor may have been undergoing second hand post traumatic stress syndrome from treating combat veterans. She also pointed out that it would be unfair to make too much of his Muslim religion without further evidence to the contrary.....Can there be such a disorder as irrational tolerance syndrome. See that naked man with a blood drenched axe running towards you. He's probably just a naturalist butcher on his lunch hour.

Drill Sgt said:"for the record Obama is an idiot when he doesn't have a teleprompter....Joe Medicine Crow, was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, not to be confused with the Medal of Honor...and his Doctorate is honorary :)"

You gotta be shitting me- Obama f'ed up that many things in one frigging moment?? I have to agree with you Sgt. In fact, Obama may be dumber than even I had thought!

Ann had a post a few days ago about some kind of Muslim terrorism, maybe that attack on the British soldiers in their camp in Afghanistan, I don't remember exactly. In the comments, I noted the recent incident where the Muslim immigrant ran over his daughter with his SUV because she was "becoming too westernized." The woman later died.

My comment was that devout Islam is incompatible with American (and Western) civilization. I said then that if Muslim immigrants don't share our beliefs in individual liberty and religious freedom, THEY DON'T BELONG HERE! I stand by that statement.

At this point, Muslims are like the Cylons in the most recent version of Battlestar Galactica. They aren't the old clanky machines that were obviously not human and therefore were the enemy that was trying to destroy you and all the rest of humanity; instead, they look pretty much just like you, and in the cases of the Afghan who murdered the British soldiers or the Muslim doctor who committed this latest atrocity at Fort Hood, you don't know they're the enemy until it's too late, because they are pretending to be friendly, lulling you into a false sense of security.

A terrorist. He is a psychiatrist who would likely have not been on the battlefield. That's one. He refused to go to Iraq because he didn't want to kill Muslims. That's two. Read that and see 1. He had no problem killing Christian, Jewish, and other non-Muslim Americans right here, just as his other co-believer named Hassan did in Kuwait. That's three. Add them together and you get terrorist

I suppose it's futile to wish it but I can dream that rather than dying quickly and "gloriously" the bastard is in "stable" condition and every time a nurse walks by his bed she turns the morphine drip off.

Obama took the time to thank the people organizing his conference, give a "shout out", and praise the attending politicians.

My one hope for Obama was that the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy would put an end to all of this hip-hop putrescence. But noooo, we still get the fist bumps and the "shout outs."

@Skyler I seriously doubt that a shrink was given "advanced" weapons training.

That I heard clearly on Nightline tonight. I wondered why also, but do not know in Army speak what that actually means.

My guess is, as a shrink, he would have been stationed at one of the bigger bases, and would not be doing anything but talking with soldiers (and getting them out of the military, perhaps). But the soldiers seem to be armed all the time there.

But one of the big questions still remains -- why did they include him for deployment?

Being forced to ship overseas where conceivably he'd have to kill his brother Arabs/Muslims might have been what set him off.

What prompts you to make such ridiculous statements?

1: He's a psychiatrist. Odds he'd have to kill other Arabs/Muslims: tiny.2: He's a MAJOR, not some 2LT fresh out of ROTC. If he had a problem with it, he could resign his commission and work somewhere else.

He's not a terrorist. He's a muslim following the commandments of his religion, as it has been followed for 1300 years: kill the infidels. So he's an enemy soldier who infiltrated our ranks.

At some point people are going to have to start recognizing that Islam has been intent on destroying Western Civilization since its inception, and the only times it has not been attacking us is when it was weaker than us. The only question is how many more of our lives will be lost before this truth will be acknowledged. Not all religions are equal. Some, like Islam, aren't even properly called religions in my opinion, because they don't teach love, they teach submission and conquest of the world. That is not a religion, that is a cult.

Watching Nightline tonight, I see they took the predictable liberal line - avoiding any mention of the fact that the killer is a muslim EXCEPT to point out that some other soldier insulted him, calling him a "camel jockey." See? He didn't kill because he's a muslim who feels a primary loyalty to Islam, not us; he killed because somebody hurt his iddy-biddy feelings. It's all *our* fault. If we'd just work harder to erase our national identity and culture so that even the most alien cultures on earth feel welcome here, they wouldn't be forced to kill us. If we'd just hurry up and submit, and be properly respectful and polite while we do it, then no one needs to get hurt.

I don't really understand the moaning about me saying this wasn't terrorism.

It was horrible, but it was an attack on a military target.

'Tell that to the victims!' What does that even mean?

We're in a war... our soldiers, at home or abroad, are facing a risk of attack all the time.

When the Allies bombed Dresden, or Truman bombed Nagasaki, it was not terrorism. When the Japanese bombed Pearl, it was not terrorism. Sure, with many military actions there is an element of attempting to intimidate and harm.

This man was a traitor, not a terrorist. He's the lowest and most horrible man who has ever worn a US Army uniform, and his actions are not mitigated at all just because they weren't terrorism. But this man appears to have wanted to fight against the US military, as he opposes them in a war. Just because he's a monster, insane, and attacked unarmed military does not mean he did not choose a military value target.

I don't mean to go into semantics... I just think there's a big difference between this and an attack on a mall or a school. There's no need to get upset, or say 'fuck you!' just because you want to call every attack made by Jihadist monsters 'terrorism'. This was worse than terrorism, because his bond with his brothers in arms was broken.

Also, just because he violated the laws of war does not make this terrorism either. Oh well... people are looking for some way to 'help', and some probably think being hysterical and screaming at me is their way of helping. If that gives you comfort, you probably are an imbecile.

I have friends stationed at Ft Hood (I suppose a lot of us do). I don't condone this atrocity, regardless of what it's called. But we are at WAR. We are not sitting around, idle. We have not really accepted what that means. Calling this terror misses the truth! We need to be prepared and handle military speech as though we are at war with Islamofascism. Soldiers who speak ill of our war effort, sympathize with our enemy, or anything like that, can't be coddled out of sensitivity. That's unfair to the Muslims and Arabs in our military who do not do that.

He's a MAJOR, not some 2LT fresh out of ROTC. If he had a problem with it, he could resign his commission and work somewhere else.

He's a DOCTOR, trained at the Army's expense. He has a service obligation to work off before he can separate. Would the Army release him to serve, say, in the Navy? I didn't think the military was that accommodating.

JAL -- I didn't read any quote from a Colonel more specific than "Hasan thinks the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a mistake."

WOW, I hadn't seen all the news on this thing. What a monstrous thing to do. Pick up some friends with automatic weapons and gun down a bunch of fresh EIT graduates.

That's so sickening. I don't really mind this being called terrorism, though these men and women were targets for being soldiers on their way to battle.

Nomilk is bringing up the Liberty incident... what a dumb dumb dumb point! I lost GREAT friends in the Iraq war when the US Air Force blew up a US Army Artillery unit.

Air Strikes are always hitting the wrong target... it's a very tough trade. The US military has killed people in the Chinese Embassy, British troops on the ground... I mean, it's stupid to even go on listing it... friendly fire occurs.

All the *racists* talking about the Liberty tragedy talk about secret transcripts and LBJ quotes that are tranparently ridiculous. It is not hard to understand that Israel has a VERY aggressive, lightning quick Air Force. They have to make decisions instantly, and this Liberty looked a lot like an Egyptian vessel. There's a lot of potential that the vessel was somehow provocative, and was confused for an enemy target.

People say it's impossible to confuse this target, with US markings, for the enemy... that's ABSURD.

Google M270. That huge boxy vehicle? A few of my friends were blown up in it when an F-15 confused it for a man holding a stinger missile. April 2003. It is REALLY easy to make those mistakes when in war, even if, in hindsight, they seem unlikely.

The secrecy and carefulness surrounding the Liberty incident is actual typical for a friendly fire incident, at least in my anecdotal experience. It's justified by the rage many have against Jews. If Israel wanted to blow up our ship, they OBVIOUSLY would not have done so in the way they did, and then called off the attack, leaving witnesses, and offered aid and apologies. They had submarines, could have dropped a munition from higher altitude, or I am sure done any number of things.

This Liberty hysteria is so sickening, and to bring it up as relevant to his story is pretty disturbing. These bright adults swore to defend a nation that welcomes Muslims and Arabs to be full fledged members. As a Major in the Army, Hassan knew just how tolerant the Army was (despite dealing with petty racists like many Americans have). He knew these young men and women had their entire lives in front of them, and he took their lives anyway. The Iraq war is won. Afghanistan is a hellhole whether we stay or go. This man hates America, and he and his army represent a threat that was very hard to end.

OTOH... I think that your entirely quaint and utterly repulsive insistence that a *military* target means it's not terrorism deserves more than a bit of scorn.

I suppose the events of 9-11 involved terrorism in New York and Pennsylvania but NOT in DC? The bombing of the Cole was not terrorism? Freaking Khobar Towers wasn't terrorism? The Marine barracks bombing in Beruit, not terrorism?

If the Weathermen had blown up the enlisted club dance instead of themselves, that wouldn't have been terrorism?

Yes, we misuse the term "terrorism" a whole lot. One of the ways we do NOT misuse it is when we apply the word to attacks on military targets.

I don't mind if you call it terrorism. It isn't, but I don't mind a bit. You're the one being hysterical about the wrong word being used.

I call his a traitor, a war criminal, and really, beyond evil. I just note that he obviously targeted only soldiers, because this is an active, hot war.

There's a point there. If you interpret my comment as 'quant', 'sarcastic', or somehow an attempt to downplay what this was, that's your problem.

you bring up the 9/11 attack on the pentagon... that attack alone killed and targeted a lot of civilains, but it was an attack on the military HQ of the free world... there is no more legitimate military target in human history. Legitimate does not mean 'good' or 'I think it's OK to attack'. I mean it is genuinely of value to a war effort.

We have to shift gears, as a country. A lot of people are desperate to find these actions to be crimes instead of battles. I'm going to disagree with that, and I frankly just don't understand why that's offensive.

By the way, deliberately targeting non combatants/military targets is a classic and well accepted definition of terrorism.

It's fine if you want to overuse the word, Synova, but just proclaiming that the normal definition no longer applies 'certainly', and that my use of the traditional definition is somehow wrong, just because this was a really really horrible act, is not persuasive to me.

Anyway, I just found it remarkable that people in here are screaming 'fuck you!' at me. It's not like I didn't have a REASON for calling this a war action.

Slow Joe, following your reasoning, he ought to be summarily executed. Why? He's an enemy soldier captured wearing the military uniform of his foe. That is against the Geneva Convention and he has no right to anything but to be executed. Me? I pray for his immortal soul and say let him face the hangman. I don't want him "sentenced to death" as Rialby said. I want him PUT to death by hanging. A firing squad is too good for him. You don't swear to uphold the flag and the republic for which it stands and then turn and slaughter those who have similarly sworn. WHen you do, you are an oathbreaker. Put him to death.

As Rush Limbaugh frequently says, Obama is C O L D! He has no feelings for anything or anyone but H I M S E L F. Note, he did not shuck Jeremiah Wright until Wright said something about Obama that Obama did not like. Wright D***ED America, and Obama said he never heard that. Wright lied about American actions, but Obama never heard that. Obama heard Wright when Wright said Obama is just another politician who'll do what he has to to achieve his ends. A Conservative Lesbian says Obama is a sociopath who feels for nothing and no one, just pays lip service.

Those pictures from the 7-11 speak a thousand words. Maj. Hasan looks like he just walked in from Peshawar. That's not standard garb for any American military man. It IS standard garb for a devout Muslim. For anyone who is puzzled and saying, "Gosh, why could he have done it?" just look at the damn pictures. Especially the one of him walking out the door with the creepy smile.

UPDATE: Hasan was not killed. (I'm hearing the live feed from Ft. Hood.)

This will be a media circus. I also think it will be bad for Obama. If he doesn't commit all the troops asked for to Afghanistan now, it will look like he's caving because he's afraid of more incidents like this.

You dither and you let let all sorts of people make decisions for you.

edutcher: He was critical of US policy in the War on Terror and also believed Moslems shouldn't fight other Moslems

Muslims shouldn't fight anybody. How's that sound? Just don't kill anybody. Stop treating only some people like human beings.

If you can find a perfect world, that might work. In this one, Moslems probably kill more Moslems than anybody else does. This guy should have been boarded out years ago; as it is, he sounds as if he was trying to find a rationale to keep him from being deployed - when it didn't work, he freaked.

I can see where guys who have been over there four or five times and lost buddies or even family members wouldn't have much sympathy for him. The Ubermaroons and the Obamatrons in DC are going to try to make him a victim. I hope they don't get away with it.

It's good that Hasan wasn't killed. Now he can be properly executed for his crimes.

Wanted out? Hired an attorney?

Bullshit.

All that he needed to do was tell his CO "Dude, I'm gay." Automatic out.

Hasan's actions were the pre-meditated actions of someone who loved the Army while it was footing the cost of his medical education, then hated the Army when it expected him to be, you know, a soldier.

A soldier in an office, out of harm's way. No blood, no bullets. No combat. Just some brain shrinkin' with those who have been in combat.

Ooohhh. He claims that someone called him a towelhead. What a pussy. Your average first grade student hears worse things in the cafeteria at lunch.

I wouldn't use the word 'terrorist' here, unless he is found to have targeted noncombatants.

Unless he is insane (unlikely, given what we understand so far) he is guilty of treason and homicide. He is a murderer, infiltrator (probably), sabateur and traitor. I will not call him "Major" nor "Doctor."

Unless he was psychotic, I would be open to a sentence of death by hanging. But that's for a jury to decide.

Yes, Slow Joe is right: the Pentagon is a legitimate military target. The airplane used to attack, however, was not.

And I do agree with Slow Joe - the insistance on using an inaccurate 'terrorism' label, and the vitriol with which those who don't buy into the label are attacked, smacks of hysteria to me.

He is a Islamic Jihadist. The liberal media, our appeasing administration, and “religion of peace” apologists can try to spin it all they want but everyone with as much as a thimble-full of common sense and honesty knows this. The fact that he is an educated man who, at least at one time, decided he would serve his country honorably doesn’t mean a thing. He went bad. He let this warped religion darken his heart and mind and because of this he did this horrible deed. Yeah, he may be a little nutty too, but then you have to be to do something like this. He is certainly not a victim nor insane.

Today will be harder than yesterday. Yesterday we found out about this asshole. Today, we're going to start learning about the victims. Kudos to the female security guard who put 4 rounds in this guy. Good shooting!

Justice for this guy is shipping his *ss off to Iraq and letting the troops there stone him. Then bury him facing away from Mecca and wrap his body in a pig's skin.

The political correct crowd of apologists will waste all our time by looking for pat answers. There are certain mental pathologies that are characterized as untreatable core beliefs. The two obvious examples are child molesters and religious fanatics.

These two pathologies are noteworthy for their disregard for the dignity of the individual and a reverence for destruction and death. Interesting that so-called educated muslims in the scientific fields seem to fall prey to the radical teachings of firebrand islamists with the same fervor as an uneducated goat herder from the Kush steeped in centuries old tribalism.

Our fatal weakness in the current war against terrorism is our refusal to stereotype the practitioners of these NOS mental disorders because of the enablers at the EEOC. As a society we have no rights until we are a victim while the perp-in-training has all the rights even after the target is destroyed. We talk about 'red flags' of behavior but are coerced into stifling the most obvious red flag of all - radical islam as practiced by a predictable demographic.

Obama initial response to this was bad. Really, really bad. I am hoping he didn't know the camera's were on, or something, because it was rather shocking to be watching the news about Fort Hood and cut to Obama...giving shout outs and all that nonsense.

Hasan's actions were the pre-meditated actions of someone who loved the Army while it was footing the cost of his medical education, then hated the Army when it expected him to be, you know, a soldier.

Yes. You know a war is going on. As a psychiatrist, he would not have been fighting anyone, so his whole excuse is bullshit. I don't care if you call him a terrorist, he is most definately a traitor and a murderer. Hang him high.

Obama initial response to this was bad. Really, really bad. I am hoping he didn't know the camera's were on, or something, because it was rather shocking to be watching the news about Fort Hood and cut to Obama...giving shout outs and all that nonsense.

I think a lot of people here are jumping to conclusions with far too little information.

Yes, he's muslim. I don't like that, but there ARE good muslims out there, and not just in the W.T. Sherman way.

We just don't know enough to know if it is "terrorism." Terrorism is not defined by the nature of the target, but by the intent of the attacker. Terrorism is an attempt to influence people to adopt the attackers' or acquiesce to their desire for power by making them fear not doing otherwise.

I think there's a good chance the doctor is simply insane. That wouldn't make him really a terrorist. Copying other people's methods does not a terrorist make. We don't know if he has a nexus with others that are organized to terrorize us.

We simply don't know enough. Patience, we'll find out.

I've seen all sorts of nutty behavior from people who want to get out of a deployment, even in peace time. I had one guy who I'm convinced broke his leg on purpose the day before heading out to Japan just so he wouldn't have to deploy.

The man needs to get the electric chair, or a firing squad regardless. There's really no need to have pointless arguments about how to define his crime before we know the full story.

He is a Muslim and Islam has been at war with the entire non-Islamic world for 1400 years even though our president has ruled that we are not at war with them. Like most Muslims he wanted all the benefits America can provide, an education, a salary, etc., but he has his own agenda and no intention of carrying out his duties. He was caught by a store camera shopping only hours before the shooting wearing his Muslim uniform, the white dress-like garb and skull cap. Whenever Muslims wear these outfits in our culture, including the veils and shawls by women, they are making a statement. They are telling us they hate us. The army should have known better to let him join in the first place. Having Muslims in the army or in any American organization is like having Trojan Horses.

Whenever Muslims wear these outfits in our culture, including the veils and shawls by women, they are making a statement. They are telling us they hate us.

I would not go that far. The statement he made was opening fire on his fellow soldiers. We can judge him and others who do the same and applaud the same types of actions. Not everybody is trying to make that statement.

Time will tell if he's proactively part of something bigger. I can wait. I'm reminded, too that chaos and evil exist in this life and sometimes people go crazy. Things would be easier if they fit into a nice us vs. them narrative, but it's not usually the case.

Jason said... Slow Joe is right.I wouldn't use the word 'terrorist' here, unless he is found to have targeted noncombatants.

I find such ignorance astounding. Evidently some people believe that "there is no such thing as terrorism" unless it involves "innocent civilians".

As if citizens become guilty of something by donning a uniform and serving their nation.

Now, in war, in conflict, we do considers soldiers different than civilians by rules of war.

Otherwise, they have the same rights as others.The law is fortunately not ignorant on what constitutes terrorism.The Islamoids targeting Ft Dix to kill US soldiers were convicted of terrorism. The Islamoids who killed two US military liaison officers were convicted by Turkey of terrorism. The Germans indicted and convicted certain Bader-Meinhof terrorists of killing one US soldier and trying to kill others. Same for the Islamoid that killed two CIA employees at the entrance to the CIA at Langley. We hunted him down in Pakistan, brought him back, and executed him for murder and terrorism.

And for Major Nidal Hasan, and for SGT Akbar, you kill your fellow comrades wearing the same uniform, you are worse than a terrorist. They used to mete out slow, summary justice to turncoats. Shooting was too good for them..they were slow-hanged or turned over to their unit to be beaten and stomped to death..or bayoneted in the stomach and left to bleed out.

If he is convicted of murder in court by a jury of his peers (or by court martial) and sentenced to death, will this be any different than if he is convicted of "terrorism" and sentenced to death? This seems to make a difference here, but I'm not sure I understand what that is.

The latest Lede para from the AP:FORT HOOD, Texas - Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.

Another one of those moderate Muslims we're supposed to dialogue with, I presume?

Hoosier Daddy said... Obama initial response to this was bad. Really, really bad. I am hoping he didn't know the camera's were on, or something, because it was rather shocking to be watching the news about Fort Hood and cut to Obama...giving shout outs and all that nonsense.

Looks like Obama just had his My Pet Goat moment.

A vast difference IMHO.

Bush was on camera, talk to kids when the news of an acident was whispered in his ear. He didn't panic, continued on for a bit, then extricated himself and followed direstions from the Secret Service.

Obama and his staff knew there was an attack BEFORE he went on stage and remarks were prepared for him. The problem is that Obama doesn't seem to have the right set of priorities in a stress situation and he was badly served by his aides. Light hearted banter in that situation is scary.

The base outsources its security to the local police. Could this have delayed the response?

The killer's cousin Nader says the killer tried to get out, but the Army required him to fulfill his time committment.

The closest town is Killeen, TX, home of the Luby's Cafeteria made notorious by the mass murder there. The massacre led to liberalized concealed carry laws in TX, led by a woman who had had to leave her handgun in her truck, and was thus powerless to stop the killer.

Obama was presiding over a historic conference of the leaders of every Indian tribe in the US. Taking two-three minutes to formally wrap up such a conference was not out of line.

Random thoughts: The Islam religion has gone back to it's founder's vision now that it has once again acquired the weapons and the leadership to succeed like he did. Islam means "Submission, that is submission to the perfect revelation thru Mohammed". It is a return to the Law of Moses without any forgiveness allowed. It makes people miserable to the point of insanity. Their anger is usually directed the heretical branch of Islam (Shia vs Sunni) or at Sinners and their Women are punished for making good men sin. Plus the are ordered by their unforgiving god to make all non-believers submit or be killed. So the do give us a choice. We can join and chant five times a day that we to submit in total obeisance to Allah. The intense Pride Factor in Islam is their only benefit, believing that only they know the Final Revelation of god given to mohammed from some Angel in a cave, and they have it all memorized. Think about actually successfully memorizing all of the Plays of Shakespeare and governing your life by that. That might work, except that people are not perfect and we need an atonement for sins when weak humans attempting to live by perfect Laws and not by grace.The good news is that moslems are not very smart, except for the ethnic Egyptians in planning positions.

fls - where the base is located is irrelevent as the base is a federal installation and its rules apply once you enter it. Those rules are posted at the gates. So concealed carry laws outside the base don't matter.

The attack was over in 3 minutes. Outsourcing of the base security was a non-issue. Especially as MPs and DA civilian guards were the make-up of the response team.

Poor Nadem. He enjoys getting a very expensive education at expensive universities but when the Army says "time to do your job" he wants out. He signed a contract and took an oath to obey lawful orders. This was, for those who don't know, his first operational posting. Up till now all his military time was in training.

Ft Hood on the other hand would be a pretty dismal place for a single Muslim. The nightlife was the O'Club annex or local cowboy bars.

I was a 32 y/o single Captain there in the early 80's. I still joke that there were no single women there that could read and write... At 18, the girls either got married or moved to Dallas. So if it was lonely for me, I expect it was awful for him.

"The closest town is Killeen, TX, home of the Luby's Cafeteria made notorious by the mass murder there. The massacre led to liberalized concealed carry laws in TX, led by a woman who had had to leave her handgun in her truck, and was thus powerless to stop the killer."

The Army hates doing static security. After 9-11 they had soldiers guarding the gate. But they got out of that business and hired civilians. Also, MPs are used elsewhere now. But, the response seems to have been good. A female DOD cop went toe to toe with the guy, took a round and still got him. She deserves the Medal of Freedom for that. Her actions stand in huge contrast to the appalling cowardace of many cops on the scenes of mass shootings in Columbine Colorado and Edmond, Oklahoma.

As far as the weapons issue goes, Fort Hood is a federal instalation and doesn't recognize Texas' conceal and carry laws. You are not allowed to carry a weapon on post.

I was there for three years in the early 00s. It is a lot better than it was when you were there. And Austin is only 65 miles away. Austin is so big now that the suburbs reach all the way north of Georgetown just 30 miles from Killeen. Killeen is not exactly paradise, but not bad as Army posts go. Better than Polk or Drum that is for sure.

"Despite what you may believe, according to the killer's cousin, the Army was holding the killer to his time commitment. They were not letting him out in exchange for cash."

So what? If he was that devout of a Muslim he should have never joined. But oh that would have required him to pay for his own school. God forbid he do that. Further, he could have claimed to be a consciencous objector and gotten out. It is not that hard.

John said...Further, he could have claimed to be a consciencous objector and gotten out. It is not that hard.

1. He was already in an MOS where he didn't bear arms and wasn't in contact with the locals.

2. As far as CO status, he was gonna plead that his religion didn't allow violence? what had changed in his belief structurein the last 15 years?

3. CO status in my day was much easier if you could point to a faith that forbade war universally. Pleading that you could fight, but just not this time was a tougher sell.

I guess you could argue that the Koran forbids Muslims fighting Muslims, but that argument then allows your peers and the Army to discriminate based on a Faith and its teachings. Muslims can't be trusted to fight? OK for your case, but harmful to your class.

I am glad to see that I was not the only one to find Obama's TV performance strange. This from Robert George on NBC Chicago web site:

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned.

Can someone on the left please pull the Prez aside and say that the "shout outs" really gall when its done just before saying how sad you are for your troops. It makes you appear less than sincere.

While I llok forward to the swift trial and sentenancing to death (an officer killing enlisted troops pretty much assures that), one wonders if Obama will sign the death warrent. Of course we can skip that and have him tried by Texas - no one doubts he'll be cooked.

I'm not trying to make excuses for the killer -- just to point out that joining the Army was reasonable for him to do at the time, he performed well enough for the Army to educate him and make him a doctor, and that there were no easy outs for him.

fls - twenty years ago we had troops stationed in Saudia Arabia and had already found Desert Storm. We were enforcing a UN sanctioned no-fly zone over Iraq. We had lost troops in Khobar Towers and Lebanon.

Only one reason is "rational", and that is suicidal Jihad. Any other justification he might have had would be irrational since he expected to be killed, which ruins any future plans he could have had. He was smart enough to understand that.

Drill Sgt: Your points are well taken, but realize that people often ignore what might happen until it does. Several folks have joined in peacetime, thinking of a steady paycheck and benefits, while discounting the possibility of actual combat.

He had to kill because the Army was going to make him (a psychiatrist) go kill people and he didn't want to kill people. He had to go to war against innocent people because the Army was sending him off to war and he didn't want to go to war.

Several folks have joined in peacetime, thinking of a steady paycheck and benefits, while discounting the possibility of actual combat.

FLS, even for you, this is inane.

Several folks are complete idiots, then, and your defending of them smacks of the worst in American liberal apologetics. This is the sicking, frogwhite underbelly of a progressive ideology. Not holding adults completely accountable for their own decisions. This dovetails with a lot of problems I have with the left. When you fail to challenge people to be excellent, they will routinely let you down.

I remember quite a lot of people bitching about being deployed to Saudi when I went with my unit in ’91. I heard this a lot, “I joined for college and medical, not to go to war.” Seriously…what sort of mental child do you have to be to misunderstand the oath you took at MEPS? Forget that…what sort of idiot do you have to be to not equate the military with war?

"Evidently some people believe that "there is no such thing as terrorism" unless it involves "innocent civilians".

As if citizens become guilty of something by donning a uniform and serving their nation.

Now, in war, in conflict, we do considers soldiers different than civilians by rules of war."

We do. And the "rules of war" are pretty restrictive. You declare war formally. You wear a uniform and meet on the field of battle, away from civilians. You keep captured combatants alive.

"Otherwise, they have the same rights as others."

The mass murder of soldiers just because they are soldiers... soldiers who are not even armed... is not any sort of legitimate war sort of target. To say, well, we are so much stronger than them, if they met us in uniform away from civilians and fought, we'd win, is not an excuse... what should happen then is NO WAR. That truth is why guerrilla tactics and terrorist tactics are employed to begin with.

It's got not an ever living thing to do with the identity of the targets.

"And I do agree with Slow Joe - the insistance on using an inaccurate 'terrorism' label, and the vitriol with which those who don't buy into the label are attacked, smacks of hysteria to me."

It's got NOTHING to do with not buying into the label. It's got everything to do with thinking that NOW is a good time to get pedantic over it. The fifth comment down? That is why I thought Slow Joe was being sarcastic... pretending to channel the inevitable apologists... the same as if he'd "seriously" posted that the man was suffering from Pre-traumatic stress syndrome.

"He attacked a legitimate military target" Slow Joe said...

NO he did NOT. It may have been a military target. It was absolutely NOT a LEGITIMATE military target.

"Drill Sgt: Your points are well taken, but realize that people often ignore what might happen until it does. Several folks have joined in peacetime, thinking of a steady paycheck and benefits, while discounting the possibility of actual combat."

People do that with marriage, too. ;-)

Seriously, though. No matter how *true* that is... it's not going to get a person so much as a free cup of coffee with anyone who's served.

I hate to point this out, but this is the ARMY, which exists to break things and kill people.

You don't join the Army because you want to have a cushy job or to have your education paid for with no quid pro quo.

When you join the Army you swear an oath and you commit to obeying your superior officers & commander-in-chief, who can and will send you to do things you might not want to do. Unless what they tell you is against the law, you have to do it.

If you do not understand this when you join up, then you are a fool.

I can understand that some people's desire to be REMFs or FOBbies may make them want to stay out of combat or the nasty shooting zone, but they need to pay attention to the fact that they are dressed up like soldiers and that their are other soldiers around them, and that there is an awful lot of combat training going on around them which should lead them to the understandable conclusion that they along with their fellow soldiers will be called upon to fight against American enemies, even to the point of killing them.

While I can't say what should be done to this alleged shooter, I think an officer murdering enlisted troops should be something that is severely punished.

"When he enlisted, twenty years ago, we were not at war with any Muslim countries."

As usual, FLS makes up facts to fit his narrative.

According to news reports, Major Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech in either 1995 or 1997, well after the Gulf War and after a number of prominent terrorist attacks. He made his commitment to the military, and received from the American taxpayer a medical education, with those events as background.

Moreover, what the hell difference does it make? He made a commitment. He was showered with benefits in return.

There are millions of Muslims in the United States, thousands in the military. Most do not choose to redefine their obligations of citizenship based on current events. And only a handful resort to murder.

In my world a man who shouts Allahu Akbar while murdering people is an Islamic terrorist....The disturbing thing is that the day before he was a model citizen, honorably serving his country-- how dare you bigots call this decent man suspect just because he practices a religion different than yours. That's the problem with many of these terrorists: Post facto there are many tells, but pre facto you are a bigot if you characterize their behavior as suspicious......I don't know where to draw the line between distrust and tolerance. I honestly think that liberals need to rethink some of their views. I'm sure that there are some Muslim victims of discrimination in this country. If you wish to count dead bodies, however, there are great many more infidel victims of Muslim bigotry in this country than the other way around. Dead bodies are a good way to measure the depth and breadth of religious intolerance. Hands down. the Muslims are the bigots, and the liberals tolerate their behavior.

Synova said...NO he did NOT. It may have been a military target. It was absolutely NOT a LEGITIMATE military target.

to be fair, it was a legitimate target depending on the rules.

If you want to play by Geneva, and Hague, absolutely not. He could not hide under the false flag of US ACU's and attack a military target. He is in the same class as a spy, sabetour, traitor, whatever... summary court and up against the wall...

If you form a military unit of AQ biys, camp in the West Texas hill country, wear uniforms, report to higher HQ, then infiltrate the base in uniform and attack, you get the full Geneva protections.

If you are a civilian civilian and use your 9mm, then Eric Holder and the SCOTUS will give you the full protection of US law before a jury of 12 angry Texans hang you poor ass.

Absolutely nothing justifies what Hasan did. Full stop. I don't at all buy the "he joined for the education and didn't anticipate being involved in a war or fighting against Muslims" or whatever. Full stop. This is his fault, and no one else's. It is not the fault of society or the military or anything else. It's his fault. Full stop. He deserves whatever he has coming (which IMO is execution).

All that said, and meant and believed, %200 percent, I'd like some insight from one of the many military types here.

Is it standard, if military authorities know (and I'm not saying they did) that one of their personnel is so deeply opposed to a war we're fighting, so sympathetic to the enemy we're fighting (in this case, due to a shared religion), etc., to send that person into a war zone? I mean, could this pose a security risk? Is such a person more likely to reach out to people over there and possibly put fellow soldiers at risk? To participate in undermining our efforts?

I'm sincerely asking these questions, which I do realize may see dumb. I certainly DO NOT intend to offend. I simply don't know how such things are handled in the military or whether my concern is entirely misguided or not.

Okay, let’s build on that. We have a reality in which people are no longer held accountable for their actions. A reality in which the first impulse isn’t to own up to the repercussions of your actions, but rather to find a convenient scapegoat to blame everything on. A reality in which there is no longer shame for things that used to be thought of as unthinkable. A great deal of this reality is directly due to a societal move toward making things easier for the very things described above.

Let’s be crystal clear. I said “a lot” but what I meant was that the idiots bitching about actually having to do their duty were just rampantly repeating themselves to anyone that would listen. They were, in fact, in the vast minority. And, curiously, they were to a person from north Saint Louis units. Take from that what you will.

What we need in this country is a population that understands adult responsibility. Hopefully we’ll see a return to that when the Boomers have shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the choir invisible.

If the good Major REALLY wanted out he could have declined his promotion to Major. He would have been chaptered out. Nor does he appear to have applied for CO status. Granted, he wouldn't get that because he, as a medical profressional, was considered a non-combatant.

fls, it would appear all my previously mentioned events could have informed him that he was in an institution which may have participated in middle eastern conflicts.

If we want to get pedantic... the term "terrorism" is almost inevitably misused.

Terrorism is a force multiplier tactic.

Thus... Charles Manson was employing terrorism because his goal with the Sharon Tate murders was to cause revolution and the uprising of blacks by framing them for the murders provoking a government crack down that would, in turn, provoke the revolution.

The attack on 9-11 had a similar goal of provoking actions against Islam and Muslims in general... perhaps even an attack on Mecca... that would so outrage Muslims that *all* would arise and sweep to victory. In that case, Bush's insistence that this was not an *Islamic* thing was a direct response to the terrorist goal of *making* it an Islamic thing.

Terrorism *properly* has those three steps and the IRA and Baader Meinhof used them consistently. Two-punch terrorism... blow up a train station to make the government give in to your demands isn't terrorism either, but extortion or something else like that.

I don't think we've used the term properly since terrorists stopped being German.

reader-jam - the military would evaluate him and his comments and make a judgement against the very real needs of the unit. We have a shortage of combat stress personnel, its a major issue, and having him deployed means soldiers get treated right away. He wasn't going outside the wire so the only Iraqis he'd meet were laborers. He wasn't going to see any action nor was that his role.

Plus there is the reality that this is his first real-world Army assignment. Plenty of troops have had strong feelings against the wars but still have done their duty. They may leave when their service obligation is up but they go. They certainly don't take out others.

Here we run smack into the very real dangers of political correctness -- political correctness that ends up costing lives.

Sure, when presented with a radical Muslim who says radical Muslim things and speakings approvingly of the actions of other radical Muslims, the Army could have said, "hey, this guy is a security risk!" But then they would get slammed for being discriminatory, anti-Muslims bigots. Better to just cover their ears and cover their eyes and ignore the evidence that is flashing before their eyes.

On NPR this morning, they reported that another Army psychiatrist told about Hasan's delivering a lecture about the Koran during grand rounds some time ago. The lecture was out of place--it wasn't just an informational piece to help other Army shrinks understand Muslims; they said the lecture was delivered as if these were Hasan's own beliefs. Hasan explained that infidels must be killed and/or have hot oil poured down their throat. Another Muslim doctor in the audience spoke up and said that most Muslims do not believe this way. The other doctors joked later that they hoped this guy didn't go off the deep end and start shooting.

Why don't I just link to the NPR piece instead of trying to paraphrase? Because the story posted online no longer contains the bit about grand rounds. Did anyone else hear the same piece?

If this story is true, it seems that the Army needs to look at why they didn't check this guy out much, much earlier. If the other shrinks were joking about him being unbalanced, someone should have followed up.

Obama was presiding over a historic conference of the leaders of every Indian tribe in the US. Taking two-three minutes to formally wrap up such a conference was not out of line.

His tone was off if he knew the camera’s had just cut to him to get a statement on the shooting. He was jocular and peppy. It’s was jarring. Perhaps he didn’t know they had gone to him already, I don’t know. If he did know, the people at the conference would have understood if he went directly to his remarks. Perhaps his mistake was to give the remarks in the same setting where he had been speaking to the conference, I don’t know.

He had to kill because the Army was going to make him (a psychiatrist) go kill people and he didn't want to kill people.

Exactly. He wasn’t going to have to kill anybody. He was going to have to take care of soldiers with PTSD and depression, except now he would have to do it in Iraq or Afghanistan. That was enough to make him go on a shooting rampage? No.

(I can buy that the military wouldn't let him out till he hit his time committment. It's the military. Don't sign up if you aren't serious about it.)

MadisonMan said... I would think that to avoid death, a non-crazy psychiatrist might be pretty good at faking insanity. The psychiatric evaluation will be interesting.

I'm not an expert, but the UCMJ has a much weaker test than civilian courts. He's going to get tried in front of 7 regular officers (not Dr's) of equal or senior grade, most of them combat vets.

The test:

* 850a. ART. 50a. DEFENSE OF LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (a) It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a sever mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) The accused has the burden of proving the defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence. (c) Whenever lack of mental responsibility of the accused with respect to an offense is properly at issue, the military judge, or the president of the court-martial without a military judge, shall instruct the members of the court as to the defense of lack of mental responsibility under this section and shall charge them to find the accused-- (1) guilty; (2) not guilty; or (3) not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

I think it was free-form vigilante terrorism in the sense that he was probably not associated with Al-Qaeda officially, but found common cause nevertheless. If an organization had found him and courted him after he knew he would be deployed, he would likely agreed.

No, I will absolutely stand by my original assessment - that I agree with Slow Joe, that 'terrorism' is not the word to use here.

The man is a traitor, of course, because he violated his oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he violated his duty as a commissioned officer to look after, serve and protect his brothers and sisters in uniform.

But if you think the Pentagon was not a legitimate military target, under ALL theories of war in common acceptance, including those taught by our own service acadamies, you've got a pretty naive view of how warfare is practiced.

From the perspective of a muslim anti-US warrior, soldiers on Fort Hood are absolutely legitimate military targets. Similarly, from the perspective of a US soldier, terrorists sleeping in terrorist training camps hundreds of miles away from the battlefield are also legitimate military targets, and should be targeted (and slaughtered) asleep in their beds, without hesitation or mercy.

The fact that they are unarmed is ABSOLUTELY, 100% IRRELEVANT!!

In fact, only a moron would attack armed troops when he had the option of attacking unarmed ones.

It is a basic tenet of maneuver warfare: bypass what is strong, and attack what is weak. And attack it in the rear.

We do the same thing, except we don't use handguns. We use JDAMS and Tomahawks.

Sorry, kiddos, but that's simply the fact of war as it is practiced today.

His methodology, though terrible, does not make him a terrorist, who by definition target noncombatants. In fact, this is the ONLY characteristic that separates the terrorist from the guerrilla fighter.